Big bangs are happening all the time (split from The Logic Of The Big Bang)

[László Hajós]

My hyphotesis is: our world is made of infinite universes, our universe is only one of the infinite. Big bangs are happening all the time, of course huge distances away from eachother. In the so called cold death of our universe the supermassive black holes (from the local galaxy clusters) continue to travel with huge speeds outwards from the centre of our big bang. In the far future some of them will slowly evaporate, but some of them will inevatibly "collide" and merge with other supermassive black holes from other universes. These merging black holes will grow bigger and bigger until they reach a critical mass which results in a new big bang. And this goes on forever in an infinite space. This is only a hyphotesis, nothing more. ( I know that theoretically there is no mass limit for a black hole, but I would love to prove this wrong if I could)

Edited September 28, 2018 by László Hajós

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

My hyphotesis

You should start a new thread.

2 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

our universe is only one of the infinite. Big bangs are happening all the time, of course huge distances away from eachother

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation (and others)

3 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

the supermassive black holes (from the local galaxy clusters) continue to travel with huge speeds outwards from the centre of our big bang

There is no "centre of the Big Bang"

3 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

but some of them will inevatibly "collide" and merge with other supermassive black holes from other universes

If there are multiple universes like this then they would be causally separated because they would be receding from each other faster than light

4 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

These merging black holes will grow bigger and bigger until they reach a critical mass which results in a new big bang

There is, currently, no theoretical reasons why large black holes would do this. Only very small black holes can explode.

5 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

This is only a hyphotesis

A hypothesis should be based on theory and some evidence. This is more like a wild guess.

[László Hajós]

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

If there are multiple universes like this then they would be causally separated because they would be receding from each other faster than light

Yes they would be a huge distance from each other but I disagree that they would be separated. If 2 big bangs happen "next" to eachother (lets say 200 billion light years) than 2 black holes travelling opposite to eachother would meet  some time in the future. The distances in one universe are bigger and bigger but that doesn't mean that the distances outside of the universe are bigger.

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no "centre of the Big Bang"

You know exactly what I meant. Or shall I write singularity? Or singularity of a hypermassive black hole which resulted in a big bang?

Edited September 28, 2018 by László Hajós

[Ghideon]

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

If 2 big bangs happen "next" to eachother (lets say 200 billion light years) than 2 black holes travelling opposite to eachother would meet  some time in the future. The distances in one universe are bigger and bigger but that doesn't mean that the distances outside of the universe are bigger.

I have some trouble understanding, as far as i know the hot dense state that expand during big bang is "everywhere". If I understand the statement above you have, kind of:
Some spatially large void.
Locally in this void, there are many, or an infinite number, of volumes in a hot, dense state.
Each one of these many local hot dense volumes can individually expand and cool. 

Questions: If you have one large initial void then isn't that, by definition "the universe"? 
If there is empty space between volumes that can expand as "separate big bangs"* doesn't that imply that each such "big bang" your hypothesis has a centre, as @Strange pointed out? 

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

And this goes on forever in an infinite space.

I haven't analysed this completely but: If space is continuously expanding and each new "big bang" is triggered by a finite mass in a black hole that has reached "critical mass", then on a global scale, doesn't the density decrease? So the process can't go on forever?

 

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

You know exactly what I meant.

No I do not, but I am on this forum to ask questions and learn more

 

*) I intentionally use "big bang" to try to be clear and separate your model from the mainstream Big Bang, in case they are different in the context of this discussion. 

[Strange]

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

You know exactly what I meant. Or shall I write singularity? Or singularity of a hypermassive black hole which resulted in a big bang?

The notional singularity in the Big Bang model (which almost certainly does not represent any physical reality) was not at the “centre” of the universe. It is as, if anything, the entirety of the universe at that time. 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Split and moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules regarding this section. Please use supporting evidence for any assertions, and answers questions and calls for clarity. 

 

[László Hajós]

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I have some trouble understanding, as far as i know the hot dense state that expand during big bang is "everywhere".

I am not sure what you mean by everywhere. As far as I know, the hot dense state is in an almost perfect sphere. And by now, after 13.8 billion years if we could see our universe from outside, it would be still more or less a sphere shape expanding. As time goes on, the sphere is less and less perfect. 

 

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Questions: If you have one large initial void then isn't that, by definition "the universe"? 

By universe, I mean example our observable universe which we live in, which was created by a big bang. The large void what I think you mean is the infinite space in which everything is. Our universe is just one small point in this infinite space, and there are infinite number of similar universes like ours.

 

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I haven't analysed this completely but: If space is continuously expanding and each new "big bang" is triggered by a finite mass in a black hole that has reached "critical mass", then on a global scale, doesn't the density decrease? So the process can't go on forever?

This is a very good point and I dont understand it, but one is for certain: the density in global scale has to stay the same, otherwise it would be the same as the cold death of our universe. If there is infinite expansion than doesnt matter if we have only one universe or infinite universes, the big bang can not repeat.

 

I would like to have a separate but related topic question: I have tried to calculate how big would be the event horizon of a hypermassive black hole with the mass of our observable universe. My results are:

23 563 442 627 light years across or

2.23*10^26 meter. Is this correct? This would be about 1 quarter the size of our observable universe. Do I understand it correctly that the event horizon grows exponencially when the mass of the black hole gets bigger?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, László Hajós said:

By universe, I mean example our observable universe which we live in, which was created by a big bang. The large void what I think you mean is the infinite space in which everything is. Our universe is just one small point in this infinite space, and there are infinite number of similar universes like ours.

While I believe it is true that the BB applies to the observable universe, any extenstion of that is part and parcel of the same space/time/universe. Whether that space/time/universe is finite or infinite is undetermined, as is the speculation on any other separate space/time/universes. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html 

"The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is H_o = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.) 

The size of the box in each view is 78 billion light years. The green circle on the the right is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. In the view on the left, this same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but now the green circle is a tiny fraction of the 78 billion light year box, and the box is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Universe. If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe."

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, László Hajós said:

I am not sure what you mean by everywhere.

The entire universe has always been uniformly full of matter. In the past that was a hot, dense quark-gluon plasma that filled all of space. As the universe expanded and cooled, that plasma cooled and allowed atoms to form, and then structures, etc.

You seem to think there was a ball that exploded and filled space. That is not correct.

6 hours ago, László Hajós said:

By universe, I mean example our observable universe which we live in, which was created by a big bang.

As far as we know, the universe beyond the observable universe is exactly the same as the observable universe. 

6 hours ago, László Hajós said:

Do I understand it correctly that the event horizon grows exponencially when the mass of the black hole gets bigger?

It is not clear what you are calculating: area, radius, diameter?

Anyway, the radius is just proportional to the mass: [math] r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2} [/math]  ... [1]

The estimated mass of the observable universe is about 10⁵³ kg [2], which gives a black hole radius of about 1.6 x 10¹⁰ light years (so it looks like you were calculating dimeter?)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

[2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/579-what-is-the-mass-of-the-universe-intermediate

Edited September 30, 2018 by Strange

[Carrock]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

 http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html 

Quote

The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point....

 

This is actually a rather mediocre reference. You can't expand a 0 dimensional point into a volume, and you can't expand an uncountably infinite number of points into a universe of uncountably infinite volume.

As you go further back in time towards the Big Bang, the observable universe occupied a smaller and smaller volume but that volume, according to any reputable theory, was never zero.

 

[taeto]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe

If you want to throw in a notion which serves to invalidate your entire explanation, then this is a pretty good choice by the author of that piece.

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

 you can't expand an uncountably infinite number of points into a universe of uncountably infinite volume.

Surely you cannot expand anything other than an uncountably infinite collection of points into a universe of infinite volume (though the same would be true for any positive volume). Other than the trivial copout to expand by adding a sufficient amount of enough new points to do the trick, of course.

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, taeto said:

 

3 hours ago, Carrock said:

This is actually a rather mediocre reference. You can't expand a 0 dimensional point into a volume, and you can't expand an uncountably infinite number of points into a universe of uncountably infinite volume.

Surely you cannot expand anything other than an uncountably infinite collection of points into a universe of infinite volume (though the same would be true for any positive volume). Other than the trivial copout to expand by adding a sufficient amount of enough new points to do the trick, of course.

The author of http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html states the universe was spatially infinite 'before' BB. That's certainly possible but unknown.

The problem is that he claims that each of the uncountably infinite points in that (finite or infinite) universe 'expanded' into a finite volume. That results in a universe with an uncountably infinite volume. Not possible.

[taeto]

25 minutes ago, Carrock said:

The problem is that he claims that each of the uncountably infinite points in that (finite or infinite) universe 'expanded' into a finite volume. That results in a universe with an uncountably infinite volume. Not possible.

Can you make this precise? Would you say that if we 'expand' each point of the uncountably infinite set R into a line of uncountably infinite many points, thereby naturally expanding R into R^2, then we have  done anything impossible? Because R has measure zero in R^2? The cardinalities are still preserved. 

[Carrock]

36 minutes ago, taeto said:

Can you make this precise? Would you say that if we 'expand' each point of the uncountably infinite set R into a line of uncountably infinite many points, thereby naturally expanding R into R^2, then we have  done anything impossible? Because R has measure zero in R^2? The cardinalities are still preserved. 

Are you implying that a universe containing aleph-one units of volume is possible? Reference please. Anything similar in maths would also be very interesting.

Your construction produces a 2-D set of lines and these lines do not have lines for each point on them, which would require 3-D, then 4-D and ultimately at least aleph-one dimensions which is impossible. You can't connect these lines one after another in a 1-D line as that line would have an uncountably infinite length, which is impossible. I'm assuming all the points have to be discrete.

I don't see any meaningful way of expanding a point into a volume. A more realistic question would be "Can a finite volume be doubled aleph-0 times, to become an infinite volume?"

That finite volume would be increased by the factor 2^(aleph-null) which is aleph-one if you assume the continuum hypothesis. So aleph-one units of volume.

I don't use trasfinite maths much so please excuse any imprecision in terminology.

[Ghideon]

Other members have already pointed at problems with your statements. But I find it interesting to try to understand how your idea is supposed to work* in comparison to the generally accepted big bang model. 

15 hours ago, László Hajós said:

I am not sure what you mean by everywhere. As far as I know, the hot dense state is in an almost perfect sphere. And by now, after 13.8 billion years if we could see our universe from outside, it would be still more or less a sphere shape expanding. As time goes on, the sphere is less and less perfect. 

Are we, according to your idea, located at a unique position near a centre of an explosion?  As far as I know the cooling of cosmic microwave shows that, on a cosmological scale, the Earth is not in a central position.  Thought experiment: imagine an astronomer, located at some large distance from us, observing the expansion of the universe. Would that astronomer, according to you, draw the conclusion that he is not in the centre but between the centre and the edge of an expanding sphere? @beecee posted descriptive images, do you have images of your model as a comparison?

 

*) I obviously do not believe the model you describe is working or supported by observations. My questions are intended to allow you to see why. 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

As far as I know the cooling of cosmic microwave shows that, on a cosmological scale, the Earth is not in a central position. 

We are in the centre of the observable universe but we have a very slight motion relative to the CMB. 

But the important point is that expansion is not away from some point but all galaxies are moving away from one another.

[Ghideon]

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

We are in the centre of the observable universe but we have a very slight motion relative to the CMB.

Correct, I failed to express myself clearly. Thanks for pointing it out! Maybe this is better: The earth is not in a central position in some expanding sphere caused by an explosion. 
 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The earth is not in a central position in some expanding sphere caused by an explosion. 

The characteristics of the expanding universe (isotropic expansion meaning that every galaxy is moving away from every other, distribution of red-shift/velocity with distance, etc) does not match an explosion. Fir example, you would need to explain how an explosion can cause objects to recede with velocity greater than the speed of light.

Also, if it is an explosion then you need to explain why GR is wrong. (Or, perhaps, why the cosmological constant is so finely tuned that the universe is not expanding.)

Edited September 30, 2018 by Strange

[Ghideon]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

The characteristics of the expanding universe (isotropic expansion meaning that every galaxy is moving away from every other, distribution of red-shift/velocity with distance, etc) does not match an explosion. Fir example, you would need to explain how an explosion can cause objects to recede with velocity greater than the speed of light.

Yes I know, I tried to create a thought experiment with one thing out of many that the speculative idea fails to explain. Now that we have a list of issues maybe the OP can address them all in one go?

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

you need to explain why GR is wrong.

Do not expect that me to do that, I prefer to try to explain why GR seems correct . Hopefully you refer to anyone proposing or believing in ideas similar to the OP?  (Bold by me).  

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Do not expect that me to do that, I prefer to try to explain why GR seems correct . Hopefully you refer to anyone proposing or believing in ideas similar to the OP?  (Bold by me).  

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" literally; we have this thing in English called the "generic you" as an indefinite pronoun. In other words "one must ..." (People have picked me up on this before!)

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" literally; we have this thing in English called the "generic you" as an indefinite pronoun. In other words "one must ..." (People have picked me up on this before!)

Best to stick to "one".

[László Hajós]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

It is not clear what you are calculating: area, radius, diameter?

Anyway, the radius is just proportional to the mass: rs=2GMc2  ... [1]

The estimated mass of the observable universe is about 10⁵³ kg [2], which gives a black hole radius of about 1.6 x 10¹⁰ light years (so it looks like you were calculating dimeter?)

Yes, I wanted to calculate the diameter. Then the diameter would be 3.2 x 10^10 or about 1/3 of the diameter of the visible universe, right?

 

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Are we, according to your idea, located at a unique position near a centre of an explosion?  As far as I know the cooling of cosmic microwave shows that, on a cosmological scale, the Earth is not in a central position.  Thought experiment: imagine an astronomer, located at some large distance from us, observing the expansion of the universe. Would that astronomer, according to you, draw the conclusion that he is not in the centre but between the centre and the edge of an expanding sphere? @beecee posted descriptive images, do you have images of your model as a comparison?

No, I am not saying that we are in the centre. This astronomer you mention would think from any point inside the universe that he is in the centre from his point of view (if he wouldnt know better). But if he would observe the whole universe (with our observable universe in it) from outside of it - and lets say that the speed of light is infinite - than he would see the universe as a sphere, with our observable universe in it, also a sphere. (I will try to make images later if I can)

 

10 hours ago, Strange said:

The characteristics of the expanding universe (isotropic expansion meaning that every galaxy is moving away from every other, distribution of red-shift/velocity with distance, etc) does not match an explosion. Fir example, you would need to explain how an explosion can cause objects to recede with velocity greater than the speed of light.

Don't think about it like a "normal" explosion. Try to imagine the mass, gravity and space in a 2d fabric as Einstein did. Now in tis fabric imagine the singularity of the universe in a very deep hole (like a black hole woud be) with all the energy or mass in it from our observable and non observable universe. (the deepness of the hole would be of course all the mass in it and the curviture is the gravity) Lets say that the diameter of the event horizon is 50 x 10^10 light years. When the big bang happens then this hole would bounce up like something would bounce when released, like an elastic fabric would do. After this bounce all the energy or mass is released, as this spacetime fabric straightens. Then this fabric would continue to bounce up creating a hill on the spacetime fabric. So all the mass from the black hole would be on this convex space time fabric, wich would continue to be more convex, or higher from the level 0. Under level 0 (or a hole in the fabric) is positive mass and gravity. Over level 0 (or this convex space time fabric) is negative mass or energy (dark energy?). As this space time convex gets bigger and bigger(higher) than all its points are streched more and more from eachother. This would be the reason for the expansion which we see now in the observable (and the non observable) universe. The fabric can be streched from one pont of the convex to the other faster than the speed of light, thats the reason it can expand faster than the speed of light

 

Peharps we will never know what happens after this in the far future but as I said before, it is an essential part in our existence that the big bang has to be able to repeat (infinitely).

To be able to repeat I can only imagine two results in the far future:

1. the convex will slowly level again with the supermassive black holes in it merging with other supermassive black holes from our neighboring universes (neighboring convexes) and create a new big bang (infinite number of universes in infinite space hypothesis)

2. The convex will bounce back, collecting all the mass and energy, creating a new big bang (the so called big bounce, the one universe hypothesis)

Edited October 1, 2018 by László Hajós

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

Yes, I wanted to calculate the diameter. Then the diameter would be 3.2 x 10^10 or about 1/3 of the diameter of the visible universe, right?

Sounds about right. But I’m not sure what the point is. 

38 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

Don't think about it like a "normal" explosion. . . .

You need to produce a mathematical model from this and show that it produces the results we observe. 

You also need to show why the behaviour predicted by GR doesn’t happen. 

 

[László Hajós]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sounds about right. But I’m not sure what the point is.

I only wanted to know how big an event horizon would be with this huge mass compared to the observable universe

 

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

You need to produce a mathematical model from this and show that it produces the results we observe. 

You also need to show why the behaviour predicted by GR doesn’t happen. 

I am not sure If I will be able to do that, but I will try (in a few weeks). I would kindly accept any help in this from anybody.

What do you mean the behaviour predicted by GR does't happen? In my mind the GR is not changed in this

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

What do you mean the behaviour predicted by GR does't happen? In my mind the GR is not changed in this

The current Big Bang model is a prediction of GR. You are suggesting an alternative explanation and are, therefore, that the current explanation is wrong